In 2002, a Joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee investigated U.S. intelligence service failures leading to the September 11, 2001 “terrorist” attacks. The Congressional report totaled 836 pages, of which the final chapter — 28 pages in length — was and still is completely classified. For over a decade, family members of the 9/11 victims, the co-chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation itself former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), a majority of the members of the 9/11 Commission and other individuals and organizations have urged declassification of these pages, arguing that what is known about them from members of Congress who have read them and gone public indicates that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and possibly also Israel are named as having been involved in organizing, financing and protecting at least some of the “hijackers” of the September 11 plot. High level calls for the declassification and release of the 28 pages took a quantum leap on April 10, 2016, with a special edition of CBS News’ award-winning investigative journalism program 60 Minutes dedicated to the topic as well as Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the longest-serving Democrat on the House of Representatives’ Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, calling for their release in an official statement. However, no American politician wants to bell the cat. And few influential citizens do, either. The cries we hear are for President Barack Obama to “declassify” the 28 Pages, and before leaving for his recent trip to Saudi Arabia he did say that he “favored” their release. Unspoken in this statement, however, are two important facts:1) if the pages from an executive branch document, President Obama himself is the highest declassification authority in the executive branch and could – and should – declassify and release them immediately; but 2) the pages are part of a Congressional branch document and so are “owned” by Congress, which has the sole authority to declassify and release them, which has been unequivocally stated in writing on CIA letterhead; and as Congress as a body has delegated such decisions to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, the very Committees who wrote the report containing the 28 Pages have the sole authority to declassify and release them at any time – and the president, as the head of the executive branch, does not. The executive and congressional branches are therefore playing a cynical game of ‘good fed, bad fed’ with the 9/11 victims’ family members and the American people. But even if President Obama had the authority to declassify and release the 28 pages, we don’t believe he would do so. Campaigning on ending the war in Iraq, he has, instead, continued it. He has also warred against Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and, by Saudi proxy, Yemen. So, there is little reason to expect that he will let American citizens and the world see how he and the George W. Bush administration have protected countries which have supported international terrorism.BUT … There really is a better way, and one that Congress has used before.1. Senators and Representatives can read the contents of the 28 Pages in camera in the House and Senate Intelligence Committees’ Secure Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) and then openly recite from memory and discus their contents and meaning on the floor of either House. In 1971, then-Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) placed 4,100 of the 7,000 pages of The Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, partially by reading from some of them on the Senate Floor and, later, by inserting the remainder through an aide into the record of a meeting of his Senate Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds. (The Pentagon Papers was the informal name given to a secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967.)There is constitutional and legal justification for this.2. Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution states:The Senators and Representatives…shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. [emphasis added] 3. In ­Gravel v. United States, 408 US 606 (1972), the U. S. Supreme Court rejected the executive branch’s argument and those of lower courts that Senator Gravel and his aides had broken the law. In upholding the immunity of members of Congress under the Speech or Debate Clause, the court clearly stated that the clause “… was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer —either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution—for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting.” And, in fact, for almost a year now former Senator Mike Gravel has been calling for just one courageous member of Congress to step forward and become “The Mike Gravel for the 28 Pages.” He has personally meeting with Representatives and Senators who have already read the pages asking them to step forward and do what he did, and has sent a law review article detailing how Gravel v. United States and the multiple subsequent court rulings upholding it continue to ensure members of Congress near-absolute immunity should they recite from memory what they have read of the 28 pages on the floor of the House or the Senate.It’s time to end the “good fed, bad fed” game that’s been going for almost 15 years over whether to, and who can, declassify the 28 pages of the Joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the Sept. 11 attacks. Let’s not hear any more calls to “Let George do it” — for the President to declassify the pages which he doesn’t have the authority to do. Let’s have Rep. Nancy Pelosi or Sen. Rand Paul or any other member of Congress read the 28 Pages and summarize them from memory on the floor of either House into the Congressional Record. Let’s finally hear some common sense, truth and wisdom from the courageous member of Congress who steps forward to be “The Mike Gravel for the 28 Pages”. Biographic Note: ***J. Michael Springmann served in the United States government as a diplomat with the State Department’s Foreign Service, with postings in Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. He left federal service and currently practices law in the Washington, DC, area.Springmann has been published in numerous foreign policy publications, including Covert Action Quarterly, Unclassified, Global Outlook, the Public Record, OpEdNews, and Foreign Policy Journal. He holds a JD from American University, in Washington, DC, as well as undergraduate and graduate degrees in international relations from Georgetown University and the Catholic University of America. In 2004, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee recognized Springmann as one of its Pro Bono Attorneys of the Year.***Barbara Honegger is a leading researcher, author and public speaker on the 9/11 Pentagon attack and the anthrax attacks.She has served in high-level positions in the U.S. Federal Government, including White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President.From 2000 to 2011, Ms. Honegger served as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the premiere science, technology and national security affairs graduate research university of the U.S. Department of Defense.Ms. Honegger has a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree from Stanford University; a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in Experimental Psychology from John F. Kennedy University; and Masters level certification in National Security Decision-making from the Naval War College, all in the U.S.

After airplanes flew into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, The Los Angeles Times reported that 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers got their U.S. visas from the American Consulate General at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a consulate where I had served as chief of the Visa Section.

What The Los Angeles Times did not report was what I had told their Washington, D.C. bureau after reading the story: (1) that the Jeddah onsulate was not a State Department post but an intelligence services operation; (2) that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) routinely demanded (and got) visas for sleazy characters with no ties to either their home country or Saudi Arabia; (3) that these vile people were terrorists recruited by U.S. intelligence officers along with Osama bin Laden, then a CIA asset.

With the help of non-State Department officials, i.e., Consul General, Jay Philip Freres (retired and living in Clearwater, Fla.), the head of the Political/Economic Section, Eric L. Qualkenbush (retired and living in Findlay, Ohio), the Political Officer, Henry Ensher (currently assigned to D.C. and living in McLean, Va.), a “Commercial Officer”, Paul Arvid Tveit (retired and also living in McLean, Va.), the Chief of the Consular Section, Justice (given name) Stevens (whereabouts unknown), and a “part-time” Consular officer, Andy Weber (last seen on the PBS program “Bio-Terror”), they were sent to America for training in blowing things up and shooting things down. Afterwards, they were sent on to Afghanistan to murder Soviet soldiers.

It seems pretty clear that they and people that they had trained are now pursuing their own goals (and most likely U.S. foreign policy interests) in helping destabilize Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Their next target may be Iran.

Having been Commercial Attaché at the American Embassy in New Delhi, India (a post with a goodly number of CIA and National Security Agency, NSA, staff) and twice in Stuttgart, Germany, a Consulate with successive Consuls General sent out by the intelligence services, Douglas Jones and Day Olin Mount (both now retired, whereabouts unknown), I was still flabbergasted at the blatant disregard (and wholehearted contempt) for the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Foreign Affairs Manual (the State Department’s Holy Book governing, inter alia, visa issuance). And it wasn’t until I was fired for questioning these spurious visa practices that I learned what was really going on and how the system worked–to America’s detriment.

Despite being given ample notice, I still did not, in fact, could not, see the coming disaster–because I trusted my government. Consider:

My predecessor at Jeddah (Greta C. Holtz, now assigned to Washington) simply did not answer my letters asking about the situation at the Consulate, later telling me that she was “too upset” to respond. (Once there, I learned that she had been repeatedly threatened with losing her job over visa refusals, but, later, was apparently “wised-up” about the situation since she then stopped her complaining.)

The then-American Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Walter Cutler (who went on to head the Meridian International Center in Washington, D.C. for 17 years, promoting U.S. ties with Iran), spent 45 minutes with me before I left the U.S. In the meeting, he told me about all the problems my predecessor had caused him in refusing visas to unqualified people. When I asked the State Department Desk Officer for Saudi Arabia
about this, he replied that he didn’t know, “Cutler was just a queer duck”.

Again, while still in D.C., I had a chance conversation with a staff member (Ellen Goff) at the Executive Office of the-then Bureau for Near East/South Asia, learning that there were serious but unspecified problems connected with visa issuances at Jeddah.

Upon my arrival, I was fêted for being a distinct change from my predecessor (who still has her job and is a high-ranking Foreign Service officer). Not long afterwards, things swiftly reversed themselves, and I was constantly browbeaten by the Consul General, Jay Freres, about refusing visas to unqualified applicants.

It was not unusual for expediters carrying visa applications to the Consulate for their employers to tell me I could issue the visa then and there or, if I refused, later on, after the Consul General ordered me to.

I was told by a contact outside the Consulate (Nestor Martin, whereabouts unknown), whom I now believe worked for the CIA, that if I spoke one word about the nefarious visa activities to a team inspecting the Consulate’s operations, I would lose my job. One of the Inspectors (Joseph P. O’Neil, later retired, but afterwards assigned to various posts in Central Asia) came to me, questioned me in detail, while insisting I had to answer and that he would protect me. I did and I later lost my job.

The Counselor for Consular Affairs in Riyadh, Stephanie Smith, (now retired and living in Florida) told me that things in Jeddah were very serious and that, on my way to my next assignment, I should speak about the disconcerting situation with the Bureau for Consular Affairs–which then professed absolutely no interest when I did so.

After being notified that the State Department intended to pitch me out, I contacted that agency’s Inspector General and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). DS agents, including Travis A. Moran, told me that I simply had had a “personality conflict” with the Consul General (who, astonishingly enough, had had a visa signature plate made and had sat at the visa window interviewing applicants, a function far below his
pay grade).

At the time (before I spoke with the journalist Joe Trento, a retired government official, and a man connected to a D.C. university (not named for their safety) and learned what was really going on), I had thought the whole problem was visa fraud, i.e., someone was paying good money for a chance to come to the U.S. Fraud like this is every consular officer’s nightmare and is anathema at State. According to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s website: “[V]isa fraud is a federal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. If the offense is connected…to international terrorism [the sentence is increased to 20 years].”

But, when I said “fraud” to people charge with investigating it, I was told I had a personality conflict. And I became unemployed.

There you have it. The United States of America, whose diplomatic posts are too often outposts of the CIA and NSA, was running (and, from what I can see) is likely still running a visas for terrorists program, while blaming the rest of the world for causing disasters of its own making. According to a former CIA Station Chief and a member of State’s Inspector General’s office, both of whom I wish to protect, at least one-third of the people who claim to work for the Department of State in reality work for one of the many U.S. intelligence agencies. In my limited experience, I would be inclined to raise that proportion which, I am inclined to believe, is increasing (In Jeddah, all but three of the 20 or so U.S. staff worked for intelligence offices).

Despite my best efforts, no other agency of the United States government ever wanted to deal with this matter. My Freedom of Information Act lawsuit about the reasons for my dismissal was sealed (and shut down) as a threat to national security. The Government Accountability Office took no interest in what I told them about the issue. The FBI ignored my calls, even the ones after September 11, 2001. Congress then and later also took an ostrich’s view of my charges with a staffer on the House Foreign Affairs Committee once telling me that we needed the CIA.

Over the years, I wrote ever more pointed letters to Congressmen dealing with the intelligence services: to John D. Rockefeller IV, then Vice Chairman, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; to Jane Harman, then Ranking Member, U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and to Nancy Pelosi, then Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives. I also wrote to Tom Davis, now Ranking Republican on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, who was opposing legislation to protect national security whistle-blowers.

In those missives, I named the intelligence officers who ran the Visas for Terrorists Program and instructed the Congressmen on how to contact them. But, no action was ever taken, no question was ever raised, giving rise to my view that they knew all about the matter. And chose to ignore it.

Additionally, in the hopes of getting some action, I published several articles on the Visas for Terrorists Program, “The Hand That Rules The Visa Machine Rocks The World” in a now-defunct magazine during the Winter of 2001, and “The Visas for Terrorists Program” in Global Outlook (Triple Issue No. 11, Spring/Summer 2006). While the concept was picked up by Project Censored (25 Runners Up) 2002, and my interviews are still on the Internet, no uproar has yet been generated and no governmental action has resulted.

Why not? Any investigation would mean indictments. It would mean jail sentences. It would mean political accountability. And, as we can see from the illegal and unconstitutional wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, soon, Iran, no one, whether voter or politician or official, wants to deal with an uncomfortable and rather dangerous reality. It would reflect on their judgment (or lack of it) and, if faced squarely, would cause them to believe that their lives have been a lie.

J. Michael Springmann is a DC-area attorney. He previously spent 20 years in the federal government, most recently as chief of the visa section at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.